The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Author: A Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Electronic Monitoring William Bales, Karen Mann, Thomas Blomberg, Gerry Gaes, Kelle Barrick, Karla Dhungana, Brian McManus Document No.: 230530 Date Received: May 2010 Award Number: 2007-IJ-CX-0017 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Electronic Monitoring Report Submitted to the Office of Justice Program National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice The Florida State University College of Criminology and Criminal Justice Center for Criminology and Public Policy Research January 2010 This report was prepared under Grant 2007-IJ-CX-0017 from the National Institute of Justice. Opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice, Florida State University, or the Florida Department of Corrections.

Authors: William Bales Karen Mann Thomas Blomberg Gerry Gaes Kelle Barrick Karla Dhungana Brian McManus With assistance from: Julie Mestre for data entry and assistance in interviewing; Ashley Arnio and George Pesta for the development of the survey instruments and the pilot study; Glen Holley for assistance in conducing interviews; and Kay Kincl for assistance in editing this report.

ABSTRACT Research Purposes: The purposes of this research include: (1) determining the effect of electronic monitoring (EM) as a supervision enhancement for offenders in terms of absconding, probation violations, and the commission of new crimes; (2) providing an explanation of the findings; (3) documenting the implementation of EM; (4) identifying and documenting the impact that EM has on offenders personal relationships, families, employment, and assimilation within the community; and (5) developing evidence-based recommendations to improve public safety and lessen negative consequences for offenders and their families. Research Design and Methodology: Data sources include: (1) administrative data from the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC), which include 5,034 medium- and highrisk offenders on EM and 266,991 offenders not placed on EM over a six year period; and (2) qualitative data collected through face-to-face interviews with 105 offenders, 36 supervising officers, and 20 administrators from fourteen counties in Florida. Random assignment of offenders to the experimental (EM) and control (non-em) groups was not possible; therefore, propensity score matching was employed to establish the two groups. Propensity score matching, as a statistical procedure, is an effective method of selecting subjects for experimental and control groups whereby selection bias is minimized and the groups closely resemble each other across key variables (Rubin, 2006; Rosenbaum, 2002) One-hundred-twenty-two covariates were used to predict EM participation, which enhanced the predictive accuracy of the matching procedure. Cox s regression techniques were utilized to analyze time-to-failure for various outcome measures. The qualitative data, which included forced-choice and open-ended questions, were systematically analyzed and include descriptive statistics and illustrative quotes from respondents. Research Results and Conclusions: The quantitative analysis demonstrates that EM reduces offenders risk of failure by 31 percent and that global positioning system (GPS) monitoring results in 6 percent fewer supervision failures compared to radio frequency (RF). All categories of offenders, regardless of offense type, experienced fewer supervision violations as a result of EM; however, the effect was reduced for violent offenders. Offenders of all age groups and those on different forms of community supervision benefited from EM. The findings from the qualitative analysis indicates that: (1) administrators reported that EM goals and objectives were being met; (2) officers and offenders opinions of EM s impact on reducing undesirable behavior are consistent with the findings from the quantitative assessment; (3) EM status and equipment does have negative consequences for offenders families, employment opportunities, and adjustment in the community; (4) there is a need to refine the selection of offenders identified as the most appropriate for EM; (5) EM is used as an alternative to prison in approximately one-third of the cases; (6) EM devices frequently lose the satellite signal resulting in numerous, unnecessary alerts; (7) EM operations may benefit from increasing judges understanding of the

equipment, the most appropriate subjects for EM, and key operational aspects of EM; and (8) the most important, recent enhancement to FDOC s EM program has been the statewide monitoring center that has significantly reduced the number of alerts. This reduction in alerts enables officers to devote more time to essential supervisory responsibilities.

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLDGEMENTS... vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... viii 1. INTRODUCTION...1 1.1. Electronic Monitoring and Corrections...1 1.2. Background...1 1.3 The Study Context...2 1.4 Purposes of the Current Study...3 2. REVIEW OF THE ELECTRONIC MONITORING LITERATURE...5 2.1 Introduction...5 2.2 Prior Quantitative Studies...5 2.3 Prior Qualitative Studies...12 2.4 Advancements in Methodologies Used in Prior Quantitative Studies...14 2.5 Advancements in Methodologies Used in Prior Qualitative Studies...15 2.6 Summary...15 3. ELECTRONIC MONITORING IN FLORIDA...17 3.1 Introduction...17 3.2 Types of Community Supervision...17 3.21 Probation...18 3.22 Drug Offender Probation...18 3.23 Sex Offender Probation...18 3.24 Community Control...19 3.25 Conditional Release...20 3.26 Parole...20 3.27 Addiction Recovery Supervision...21 3.3 History of Electronic Monitoring...21 3.4 Electronic Monitoring Laws and Policies...24 3.5 Trends in Electronic Monitoring Placements and Populations...26 3.6 The Costs of Electronic Monitoring...30 3.7 Sex Offender Residency Restrictions...32 i

3.8 Discussion and Conclusions...35 4. A QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ELECTRONIC MONITORING...37 4.1 Balancing the EM and Non-EM Groups Using the Average Treatment of the Treated Weights Derived from the Propensity Score...38 4.2 Analysis Approach...53 4.3 Results: Effects of Electronic Monitoring on Absconding and Revocations...56 4.4 Effects of Electronic Monitoring on Absconding, and Revocations Organized by Age Groups...59 4.5 Effects of Electronic Monitoring on Absconding and Revocations Organized by Offense Groups...61 4.6 Effects of Electronic Monitoring on Absconding and Revocations Modified by Supervision Type...62 4.7 Residual Analysis: Tests of Proportionality...63 4.8 Summary...63 5. A QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ELECTRONIC MONITORING...65 5.1 Introduction...65 5.2 Methodology...66 5.2.1 Development of Survey Instruments...67 5.2.2 Pilot Test of Survey Instruments...67 5.2.3 Location of Interviews...68 5.2.4 Method of Selecting Offenders, Officers, and Administrators...70 5.2.5 Description of the Interviewing Process...71 5.2.6 Limitations...71 5.2.7 Number and Locations of Interviews Conducted...73 5.3 Findings...74 5.3.1 Descriptions of the Populations Interviewed: Offenders, Officers and Administrators...74 5.3.2 Impact of EM on Offenders Families and Friends...89 5.3.3 Impact of Electronic Monitoring on Offenders Obtaining and Maintaining Employment...93 5.3.4 Impact of Electronic Monitoring on Offenders Ability to Find Housing...97 5.3.5 Effect of State, County, and City Zoning Restrictions on Sex Offenders Residency...97 ii

5.3.6 Shame and Embarrassment Offenders Feel From EM and How the Media Impacts Others Perceptions of Them...100 5.3.7 The Cost of EM to the Offender and the Associated Consequences...102 5.3.8 Are the Most Appropriate Offenders Placed on EM? Officers Opinions...103 5.3.9 Types of Offenders for Which EM is Most and Least Effective: The Officers Perspective...108 5.3.10 Impact of EM on Attending Court Ordered Treatment Programs...111 5.3.11 Impact of EM on Absconding From Supervision...112 5.3.12 Impact of EM on Violating Conditions of Supervision...114 5.3.13 Impact of EM on Committing New Crimes...116 5.3.14 Impact of EM on Offenders Post-EM...118 5.3.15 EM as a Diversion from Prison or Jail: Perceptions of Officers and Offenders...120 5.3.16 EM as a Punishment...124 5.3.17 EM Training: Offenders Opinions...127 5.3.18 EM Equipment...128 5.3.19 The Judiciary s Role with EM: Officers Opinions...133 5.3.20 Victim Involvement in the EM Program: Administrators Opinions...136 5.3.21 The Statewide Monitoring Center: Officers and Administrators Opinions...137 5.3.22 The Goals of EM...141 5.3.23 General Comments about the EM Program...143 5.4 Summary and Conclusions...147 5.4.1 Goals and Objectives of EM...147 5.4.2 Impact of EM on Compliance of Supervision and Public Safety?...148 5.4.3 Unintended Consequences of EM on Offenders...148 5.4.4 Most Appropriate Offenders for Placement on EM...150 5.4.5 EM as an Alternative to Imprisonment...150 5.4.6 EM Equipment Issues...151 5.4.7 The Judiciary and EM...152 5.4.8 Effective EM Policies and Practices...152 6. POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND DISCUSSION...153 6.1 Policy Recommendations...153 6.2 Recommendations for Future Research...155 iii

REFERENCES...157 APPENDICES...162 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Quantitative Studies of the effectiveness of EM versus Non-EM...8 Table 3.1: Number of offenders under supervision in Florida: June 30, 2009...23 Table 3.2: Number of offenders on EM in Florida: June 30, 2009...24 Table 4.1: Variables used to generate the propensity score...42 Table 4.2: Balancing results using average treatment of the treated weights...48 Table 4.3: Effects of EM on probation supervision outcomes...59 Table 4.4: Effect of EM for different age groups...60 Table 4.5: Effect of EM by offense type...62 Table 5.1: Number of offender, officer, and administrator interviews by circuit and county...74 Table 5.2: Offenders demographics...75 Table 5.3: Officers demographics...81 Table 5.4: Officers work history at the Florida Department of Corrections...82 Table 5.5: Number of different types of supervision on officers caseload...82 Table 5.6: Officers caseload by type of supervision...83 Table 5.7: Officers EM caseloads...84 Table 5.8: Officers non-em caseloads...84 Table 5.9: Officers sex offender workload...86 Table 5.10: Officers Jessica Lunsford Act offender caseload...87 Table 5.11: Administrators demographics...88 Table 5.12: Impact of EM on spouses, significant others, children, and friends...92 Table 5.13: Impact of EM on obtaining employment...95 Table 5.14: How officers felt EM affected offenders job situations...96 Table 5.15: Impact of local residency restrictions applied to sex offenders: the perspectives of the supervising officers...98 Table 5.16: Impact of local residency restrictions applied to sex offenders: the perspectives of community corrections administrators...99 iv

Table 5.17: Embarrassment and shame from electronic monitoring and media impact on offenders...101 Table 5.18: Cost of electronic monitoring for offenders...103 Table 5.19: Percentage of EM offenders that officers believe should not be on EM...104 Table 5.20: Officers reasons why some of their EM offenders should not be on EM...105 Table 5.21: Percentage of offenders not on EM officers believe should be on EM...106 Table 5.22: Reasons given by officers why some of their non-em offenders should be on EM...107 Table 5.23: Types of offenders for which EM is most effective: Supervising officers opinions...109 Table 5.24: Types of offenders for which EM is not effective: Supervising officers Opinions...110 Table 5.25: Percentage of EM offenders likely to have been sentenced to state prison if EM were not available: the officers perspective...123 Table 5.26: Number of times per week offenders claim to have signal problems with EM device...129 Table 5.27: Locations where offenders report losing signal with the EM device...130 Table 5.28: EM equipment: Offenders opinions...132 Table 5.29: Judiciary s Role with EM: Officers opinions...134 Table 5.30: Prosecutors perceptions of EM and factors affecting placement decisions: the opinions of supervising officers...135 Table 5.31: Impact of the Statewide Monitoring Center: Officers opinions...138 Table 5.32: Impact of the Statewide Monitoring Center: Administrators Opinions...139 Table 5.33: Goals and Objectives of EM: Administrators opinions...141 Table 5.34: Reasons that is reaching its goals: Administrators opinions...142 Table 5.35: Significant factors that make EM effective: Administrators opinions...143 Table 5.36: General comments about EM: by officers...145 Table 5.37: General comments about EM: by Administrators...147 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1: Number of new offender placements on EM in Florida: FY1993-94 to FY2008-09...27 Figure 3.2: Number of Offenders placed on EM in Florida by type of EM device: FY1993-94 to FY2008-09...28 Figure 3.3: Number of Offenders on EM in Florida on June 30th: FY1993-94 to v

FY2008-09...29 Figure 3.4: Number of Offenders on EM in Florida by type of EM on June 30th: FY2000-01 to FY2008-09...30 Figure 3.5: Annual EM Appropriates in Florida: FY2000-01 to FY2009-10...31 Figure 4.1: Graph of common support for the EM and comparison groups...46 Figure 5.1: Florida Department of Corrections community corrections organizational chart: September 2009...68 Figure 5.2: Location of Interviews...69 Figure 5.3: Offenders highest level of education...76 Figure 5.4: Marital status of offenders...77 Figure 5.5: Supervision type...77 Figure 5.6: Offender length of sentence...78 Figure 5.7: Offender length of supervision...78 Figure 5.8: Offender time on electronic monitoring...79 Figure 5.9: Primary offense of offender...80 Figure 5.10: Officers daily electronic monitoring workload...85 Figure 5.11: Administrators employment length at Department of Corrections...89 Figure 5.12: Offenders opinions of EM impact on housing...97 Figure 5.13: Offenders opinions of their likelihood of absconding while on EM...113 Figure 5.14: Officers opinions of the offenders likelihood of absconding while on EM...114 Figure 5.15: Likelihood of violating while on EM: Offenders opinions...115 Figure 5.16: Likelihood of violating while on EM: Officers opinions...115 Figure 5.17: Likelihood of committing a new offense while on EM: Offenders opinions...117 Figure 5.18: Likelihood of committing a new crime while on EM: Officers opinions...117 Figure 5.19: Offenders opinions of the sentence they would have received if EM did not exist...121 Figure 5.20: Offenders preference of jail or prison rather than EM...122 Figure 5.21: Percentage of offenders who perceive EM as a punishment...124 Figure 5.22: Percentage of offenders who perceive EM as severe punishment...125 Figure 5.23: EM as punishment: Officers opinions...126 Figure 5.24: Percentage of officers who perceive EM as a severe punishment for the offender...126 Figure 5.25: Offenders opinions of the initial EM training received...128 Figure 5.26: Offenders preferences whether to remain on EM...133 vi

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS Simply acknowledging the contribution the staff of the Florida Department of Corrections provided to this project does not adequately represent their contribution and the high level of dedication they exhibited to this endeavor. A multitude of FDOC staff from the Central Office, Regional Officers, and Probation Officers throughout the state made this project possible. The individuals in the Central Office, Bureau of Community Programs, who have statewide oversight of the Florida s Electronic Monitoring program, were instrumental in our ability to prepare the grant proposal submitted to NIJ. Additionally, they devoted a great deal of time meeting with the research team, coordinating site visits throughout the state, providing invaluable information on a regular basis, and coordinating with the field offices to make the administrator, officer, and offenders interviews go smoothly. Chief of Community Based Programs Shawn Satterfield, Correctional Program Administrator Brian Futch and Correctional Services Consultant Thomas Seaman were just some of the FDOC staff who assisted us in so many ways and imparted a wealth of valuable knowledge about the intricacies of the complex EM program and its operation. We would also like to thank the staff of the FDOC s Bureau of Research and Data Analysis for their time and efforts in providing us with the research datasets that were invaluable in our effort to examine the effects of EM on offender outcomes. Bureau Chief David Ensley, Research Manager Kristine Dougherty and Research Manager Dena French were just some of the research staff willing to devote time and commitment to this effort. We thank them for their timely and gracious assistance. We cannot say enough about the FDOC staff in the numerous probation offices we visited to conduct the qualitative portion of this project. They are too numerous to recognize individually, however, to a person, they were gracious, accommodating, and unselfish in taking time out of their busy schedules to assist us in the interviewing process. These are dedicated correctional professionals that are committed to their craft and face very difficult challenges in supervising felony offenders in a manner that will keep the public safe and secure. We applaud their efforts and thank them very much for their assistance and interest in this project. We hope the findings of this research will make a positive difference in how these individuals fulfill their responsibilities associated with the EM program in the future. vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background and Objectives In recent years, electronic monitoring (EM) has gained prominence in corrections as a pre-trial supervision alternative to local jail, for medium and high-risk felony offenders placed on community supervision in lieu of incarceration, and as a mandated community supervision requirement for serious offenders released from prison. Additionally, there has been a recent proliferation of laws that require the use of EM, especially Global Positioning Systems (GPS), for specified sex offenders supervised in the community for enhanced supervision. With over 5.1 million offenders under some form of community supervision in the U.S., the potential for the growth in the use of electronic surveillance is enormous. Advances in the EM technology, coupled with an increased awareness of its potential capabilities, likely suggests an increased reliance on the use of EM across state correctional agencies for a variety of offenders. Unfortunately, and as Gainey, et al. (2000) have pointed out, research has not kept pace with the rapid implementation of this particular penal strategy. A review of both the quantitative and qualitative literature on EM supports this claim. In response to this research void on EM, five primary purposes guided the study: (1) provide empirical evidence of the effectiveness of EM among medium-to high-risk offenders on supervision; (2) provide an explanation of the findings on the potential effectiveness of EM; (3) provide a comprehensive examination of how electronic surveillance is implemented in community corrections; (4) present findings indicating how the EM experience impacts offenders in terms of their relationships with members of their families and friends, employment experiences, and adjustment to their communities; and (5) based on the findings, develop recommendations for how the EM may be improved from an operational and public safety perspective and reduce any negative consequences of EM that are identified. The setting for this study is Florida, which particularly appropriate for this research for several reasons. First, EM for felony offenders under community supervision has been used for 25 years in Florida, with a focus on moderate-to high-risk offenders. Secondly, there are numerous types of supervision with varying degrees of requirements available to the judiciary ranging from regular probation to house arrest. Third, the number of offenders on supervision is significant as reflected in a population of 143,191 offenders and 2,392 on EM on June 30, 2009. Data and Methodology There were two primary sources of data collected for this study. First, for the empirical component of the study, datasets provided by the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) were used to determine the impact of EM on supervision outcomes. The source of these data is viii

FDOC's Offender Based Information System (OBIS) which is a comprehensive offender data management system for all offenders and the detail, breadth, and quality of FDOC s data on offenders under its jurisdiction are optimal for conducting empirical evaluation research of correctional strategies. These data cover a period of community supervision for Florida criminal offenders between June 1, 2001 and June 30, 2007. Florida community supervision authorities use these data to monitor and record the various events for offenders placed on community supervision. Second, a qualitative assessment of EM was conducted of policies, practices, and processes of the electronic monitoring (EM) program as it is utilized for felony offenders living in the community. Extensive personal interviews with 105 EM offenders, 36 probation officers who supervise EM offenders, and 20 administrators who oversee the EM program at the local level were conducted in fourteen counties throughout Florida. The empirical assessment of the effect of EM on offender outcomes was limited to medium- and high-risk offenders, which we were able to distinguish from low-risk offenders based upon FDOC s risk classification in OBIS. Two groups of offenders were identified, first, those placed on EM at some point in their community supervision (the EM or "treatment " group), and second those offenders who were supervised without the use EM technologies (non- EM or "control" group). A fundamental problem in using observational studies to make causal inferences about the effects of a correctional intervention such as EM is that the units (people) are not randomly assigned to treatment therefore, the units that are treated may be very different on a set of one or more background characteristics that affect both their selection into treatment and their outcomes. Therefore, propensity score matching was used to develop equivalency in the EM and non-em groups except for the experimental effect, which avoids the problem of "selection bias" resulting from some variable (or set of variables) that may determine who is selected for treatment that may also affect the outcome. The fundamental characteristic of propensity score methods is that the researcher is able to balance the characteristics of people in treatment with those in the comparison group, thereby approximating the characteristics of an experimental design, in which balance is achieved through randomization. Cox Proportional Hazards routines were used to analyze the data and determine the relative effects of EM on absconding, revocations for technical violations, and revocations for misdemeanor or felony arrests. The analysis of the qualitative assessment based on the interviews conducted with offenders, officers and administrators began with grouping open-ended responses into meaningful categories that were conceptually similar. These data along with the responses to forced-choice questions were then analyzed by generating descriptive statistics. Additionally, illustrative quotes provided by the respondents were recorded for each of the interview questions. ix

Findings Quantitative: Ultimately, through the use of propensity score techniques, the study was able to compare offenders under different forms of supervision that were placed on EM compared to those offenders that were subject to less intrusive forms of community supervision. Additionally, the effect of EM across offenders placed on each of the two EM technologies used, Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and Radio Frequency (RF) were determined. Comparisons in the relative effects of EM on offenders under different types of supervision, those serving a sentence for various types of crime, and those of different ages were also assessed. The following is a summary the findings: 1. EM reduces the likelihood of failure under community supervision. The reduction in the risk of failure is about 31%, relative to offenders placed on other forms of community supervision. 2. GPS typically has more of an effect on reducing failure than RF technology. There is a 6% improvement rate in the reduction of supervision failures for offenders placed on GPS supervision relative to offenders placed on RF supervision. 3. EM supervision has less of an impact on violent offenders than on sex, drug, property, and other types of offenders, although there are significant reductions in the hazard rate for all of these offense types. 4. There are no major differences in the effects of EM supervision across different age groups. 5. There were no major differences in the effects of EM for different types of supervision. Qualitative: The qualitative assessment was guided by the following questions: 1. What are the goals and objectives of the EM program? Has the program been implemented with fidelity to achieve the goals and objectives? 2. Does supervising offenders in the community using electronic surveillance result in the established desired outcomes of increased compliance with the conditions of supervision while maintaining public safety? 3. Has EM impacted offenders in ways that were not intended by state laws and agency policies, in terms of family and personal relationships, offenders self-concept, employment opportunities, and job retention? 4. Are the most appropriate offenders being ordered and placed on EM, given that it is a limited resource that can not be made available to all offender types? x

5. Has EM been used as an alternative to imprisonment as intended? 6. What EM equipment-related issues arise and are there consequences for the offenders and FDOC? Based on the information collected through the interviews with community corrections administrators, officers, and offenders on EM, the following conclusions and policy and practice recommendations can be drawn. 1. From the perspective of FDOC administrators, the primary goals of the EM program are to ensure offender compliance to the terms and conditions of their supervision as established by the judiciary, tracking offenders, and as a tool to reduce recidivism and protect the public and victims of crime. Overall, administrators believe these goals have been met; however, they see areas that need improvement. Additionally, they consider EM as only a tool that can assist officers in better supervising offenders that is not a substitute for diligent oversight by the officers through personal contacts with the offender. 2. Supervising officers and offenders generally believe that EM achieves the goal of resulting in lower levels of absconding, violations of court imposed conditions of supervision, and re-offending. However, the effects of EM on absconding were perceived as lower than other outcomes. These findings are consistent with the quantitative results and suggest that the EM program should be expanded to improve public safety. 3. Offenders and, especially officers, believe EM has negative consequences for the offenders in terms of their relationships with their spouses, significant others, and their children. Practitioners should determine if there are procedures that could be implemented that would reduce these effects. 4. A large proportion of offenders expressed a sense of shame about being on EM and felt they were stigmatized by others in a way that did not represent their actions. Additionally, the majority of offenders believed that media accounts of EM exacerbates the levels of stigma they receive. The current plan to reduce the visibility of the GPS device that receives the satellite signal should help reduce this consequence in the future. 5. Offenders and officers were almost unanimous in their assessment that the electronic tether is a serious detriment to offenders' ability to obtain employment and remain employed. 6. EM does not negatively impact offenders in obtaining adequate housing. However, the state, county, and city zoning restrictions on residency for sex offenders' results in xi

detrimental outcomes that are counter to their intentions. Officers and administrators overwhelmingly expressed that these residency restrictions have significant negative consequences that may result in actually jeopardizing, rather than enhancing, public safety. Policy makers should consider changes to the state laws and local ordinances that establish residency restrictions to address their unintended consequences. 7. A significant portion of offenders on EM who are required by the courts to reimburse the state for the cost of this technology are limited by their ability to abide by this requirement because of the infrequency with which jobs are available among this relatively unskilled and under-education population, other costs offenders must pay for supervision and treatment and other personal financial obligations relating to housing, food, and transportation, child care, etc. These reimbursement requirements should be reevaluated by policy makers to determine their appropriateness among this population. 8. The response obtained from officers who supervise both EM and non-em offenders and who are intimately familiar with the lives and activities of these offenders and have witnessed countless failures and successes indicates that there is much room for improvement in the allocation of EM to ensure this form of supervision and surveillance is used on those offenders who need it most (i.e., those who pose the most risk to the public in terms of absconding, violating their conditions of supervision, and committing new crimes). This suggests that policy makers and the courts, who make the EM offender placement decisions, need to evaluate the current strategies of EM allocation to increase the efficient use of this limited resource and improve public safety. 9. Approximately 1 in 3 EM offenders would have served time in prison if not for the electronic surveillance option available to the courts. Given that it costs six times more to incarcerate an offender in state prison than to place them on EM, along with the additional long-term consequences of returning to the community after serving time in prison, the EM program appears to be a cost-effective method of dealing with offenders. Therefore, expanded use of EM for appropriate offenders should be considered. 10. A critical issue that arose during the interviewing process relative to the EM equipment GPS specifically was the sometimes frequent problem in which offenders MTDs loses a signal with a satellite. Frequent occurrences of losing the satellite signal can be consequential for offenders at their places of work because they have to vacate their areas of responsibility. The FDOC and the EM vendor are well aware of the problem of maintaining satellite signals in certain locations and appear to be doing everything possible to diminish this problem to the extent possible. Continued evaluation in this regard should remain a priority of the EM program. xii

11. Judges and prosecutors need to be better educated about the EM equipment and how the technology is applied to offenders under community supervision. There also appears to be room for improvement for the judiciary to learn more about the potential negative as well as positive effects of EM on various types of offenders so they can make better offender EM allocation decisions. 12. The Statewide Monitoring Center, implemented in October 2007, is clearly one of the most successful enhancements to FDOC s EM program in the recent past. The strategy has resulted in drastic reductions in the number of minor alerts that officers have to address, which enables them to devote more time to other important matters relating to the supervision of offenders in the community and has expanded the lines of communication and enhanced the working relationship between the FDOC and the vendor to improve the general operation of the EM program. EM programs nationwide should consider including this strategy in their operation. Future Research Recommendations for future research are: 1. The present research examined felony offenders at the state level. The use of EM for offenders placed on pre-trial supervision to reduce jail populations has expanded significantly in recent years. Research is needed to study these populations and determine if EM is an effective strategy to divert arrestees from pre-trial incarceration in local jails and to identify appropriate changes to make EM more effective and cost efficient for this particular population of offenders. 2. Second, this study is based on only one state that is heavily vested in the use of EM for their felony offenders on supervision. Studies in other states to determine the relative effectiveness of EM and how their programs can be improved would further inform policy makers and practitioners on how to improve the EM process on a much broader basis. Based upon this study, relying only on analysis of quantitative data to evaluate the effectiveness of EM is not adequate. The qualitative assessment of EM for this study demonstrated the value of gathering information directly from those that administer and experience EM to gain a more direct and comprehensive assessment of how EM impacts offenders and community corrections professionals. These qualitative studies are the exception because of the significant time and expense required to complete them. However, these qualitative findings are critical to providing compelling interpretations of EM s processes and outcomes as documented through quantitative assessments. xiii

1.1 Electronic Monitoring and Corrections Chapter 1 Introduction By the end of 2008, there were 1.6 million offenders incarcerated in state and federal prisons in the United States (Sabol, West, and Cooper, 2009). Additionally, over 5.1 million offenders were under some form of community supervision at the end of 2008, an increase from 4.6 million in 2000 and an average annual growth rate of 1.4% (Glaze and Bonczar, 2009). In recent years, electronic monitoring (EM) has gained prominence in corrections as a pre-trial supervision alternative to local jail, for medium and high-risk felony offenders placed on community supervision in lieu of incarceration, and as a mandated community supervision requirement for serious offenders released from prison. Additionally, there has been a recent proliferation of laws that require the use of EM, especially global positioning systems (GPS), for specified sex offenders supervised in the community for enhanced supervision. There is an urgent need for evidence-based re-entry strategies for the numerous offenders released annually from state and federal prisons and pre-trial supervision alternatives to jail. Over the years, EM has been widely promoted as a cost-efficient and effective means of supervising high-risk offenders released from prison including, sex offenders who the courts consider suitable for community sanctions enhanced by electronic surveillance. However, and despite these positive claims, to date, EM has not been conclusively established to be cost efficient or to promote public safety. 1.2 Background In May 2005, the governor of Florida signed into law the Jessica Lunsford Act, which was named after a 9-year-old girl who was abducted, sexually assaulted, and killed that same year. Under this legislation, anyone convicted of molesting a child under the age of 12 faces a life sentence with a minimum mandatory sentence of 25 years. If the offender is released back into the community, he or she is subject to EM for life. Furthermore, sex offenders placed on supervision after the law went into effect or sentenced to supervision following its passage are mandated to be placed on EM for the 1

remainder of their supervision. The law appropriated $3.9 million in recurring funds to increase the number of EM (GPS units) by 1,200 units. The Jessica Lunsford case and the subsequent mobilization of Florida lawmakers to increase the penalties for and intensify the surveillance of sex offenders in the community through the mandatory use of EM quickly drew national attention, which led to similar legislation in several other states and the federal government. In the wake of these events, it was expected that other states would experience future increases in the use of EM for sex offenders as well as other offender types considered to be moderate or high risk. Advances in the EM technology, coupled with an increased awareness of its potential capabilities, likely suggests an increased reliance on the use of EM across state correctional agencies for a variety of offenders. Unfortunately, and as Gainey, et al. (2000) have pointed out, research has not kept pace with the rapid implementation of this particular penal strategy. A study by Padgett, Bales, and Blomberg (2006) examined the effectiveness of EM in relation to public safety and reduction in the likelihood of recidivism. This study was the first to examine the effect of EM on the likelihood of revocation for a new offense, technical violations, or for absconding, using data from a large sample of moderate-to high-risk offenders (75,661) and controlling for a range of other factors known to impact community supervision outcomes. The study found that both GPS and radio frequency (RF) monitoring led to reductions in the likelihood of offender failure and absconding, and that this effect held true for all offender types. However, the study did not address the question of how and why EM works or investigate unintended consequences of this supervision strategy. Additionally, the study was devoted to offenders on house arrest and did not include those sentenced to probation or other forms of community supervision, which have increasingly become subject to EM as a result of the Jessica Lunsford Act. The present research addresses these questions and extends the empirical findings related to the effectiveness of EM, as reported by Padgett et al. (2006). 1.3 The Study Context Florida is a suitable site for a comprehensive evaluation of EM that will result in 2